[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The GreatViews expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.

President Delivers Commencement Address at the United States Merchant Marine Academy
Captain Tomb Field at Brooks Stadium
United States Merchant Marine Academy
Kings Point, New York

10:07 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for the warm welcome -- if you know what I mean. (Laughter.) Admiral Stewart, Secretary Mineta, members of the United States Congress, Academy staff and faculty, distinguished guests, proud family members, and most importantly, the Class of 2006. I'm honored to be the first President to address the United States Merchant Marine Academy. I know that a presidential visit to Kings Point has been a long time in coming. And, Admiral, I hope it's worth the wait. (Laughter and applause.)

This is a proud moment for the Class of 2006. You have worked hard for this day. You sweated through the hardest indoc in Academy history; you braved the Jamaican beef patties of Delano Hall -- (applause.) You spent a year when your classroom was a ship and your campus the Seven Seas; you've made it through endless drills on the Grinder; you've survived the restriction musters that come with missing the train back from Manhattan. (Applause.) This fall, your football team brought home the Secretaries Cup by beating the Coast Guard. (Applause.) You've rung the bell outside Wiley Hall. And the words etched in your class ring affirm your commitment to teamwork: "Not for you, not for me, but for us." Your parents are proud of you, your teachers are proud of you, and this Academy is proud of you. On behalf of the American people, I congratulate you on a fine achievement, and I thank you for choosing to serve the United States of America. (Applause.)

This morning, I flew here on Air Force One with my friend, Andy Card. You might remember Andy -- he was my former chief of staff, and he attended this Academy in the 1960s. (Applause.) It just so happens when he was a plebe, he was stuffed in a duffel bag and run up the flagpole. (Laughter.) I know he appreciates the much warmer welcome he received here today. (Laughter.)

Secretary Card also reminded me that the President of the United States has the authority to lift all demerits and restrictions. So I bring you a graduation present. (Laughter.) In keeping with the longstanding tradition at our nation's service academies, I hereby absolve all midshipmen who are on restriction for minor conduct offenses -- I leave it to Admiral Stewart to define exactly what "minor" means. (Laughter and applause.)

Life at this Academy is demanding -- and it is meant to be. America is a great maritime power, and our Merchant Marine has a vital role to play. In times of peace, the Merchant Marine helps ensure our economic security by keeping the oceans open to trade. In times of war, the Merchant Marine is the lifeline of our troops overseas, carrying critical supplies, equipment, and personnel. For more than six decades, the mission of this Academy has been to graduate highly skilled mariners to serve America's economic and national security needs. To train you for these responsibilities, this Academy sharpens your mind, it strengthens your body, and builds up your character. The Academy has made you strong and instilled respect for the Kings Point motto -- Acta Non Verba -- "Deeds, Not Words."

"Deeds, Not Words" was the hallmark of this Academy in World War II. In the early years of the war, America's efforts to supply our allies in Europe were threatened by the U-boats that were sinking American ships faster than we could build them. The need to arm and defend our merchant ships was urgent, and King Pointers answered the call. One of them was an 18-year-old named Edwin O'Hara, whose statue stands not far from here. In September 1942, Cadet O'Hara was serving on the USS Stephen Hopkins when it came under attack from two Nazi raiders. After the entire gun crew of the Hopkins was killed by enemy fire, O'Hara singlehandedly served and fired the last five shells in the ready box, scoring direct hits on the German warship Stier. Cadet O'Hara was mortally wounded in the action, but not before he helped send the Stier to the bottom of the South Atlantic.

Edwin O'Hara is one of 142 Academy graduates who gave their lives in the second world war. Today Kings Point is still the only one of our five service academies that sends its students into the theaters of war -- and for that reason, it is the only Academy authorized to fly a Battle Standard. (Applause.)

"Deeds, Not Words" was your response on the morning of September the 11th, 2001. From this campus, every man and woman could see the black smoke rising from the Twin Towers. Within hours, your midshipmen were working side-by-side with the Coast Guard and marine division of the New York City Fire Department. Over the next nine days, you moved firefighters and police and emergency response teams into Ground Zero. You moved tons of food and water and supplies. The heroic response to that terrible day showed the spirit of America -- and the spirit of this fine Academy. And I thank you for your service. (Applause.)

"Deeds, Not Words" defines the Academy's role in the global war on terror. Your cadets are forward deployed in the Middle East, where they're supporting operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Your Global Maritime and Transportation School is providing advanced training in areas from marine engineering to port security for military units like the Navy Seabees and Surface Warfare Officers. And your graduates are serving our nation in every branch of our Armed Services, as sailors projecting American combat power across the Earth; as Marines and soldiers leading platoons from Khandahar to Tikrit; as Coast Guard officers securing our homeland; and as airmen delivering justice to terrorists hiding in safe houses and caves. In the global war on terror, the men and women of this Academy are making a difference on every front -- and the American people are grateful for your service. (Applause.)

To win the war on terror, we will continue to build and strengthen ties with our friends and allies across the world. America's alliance with Europe is a key pillar of our strategy for victory. And tomorrow, Laura and I will depart on my 15th trip to Europe since I have taken office. This visit comes at a critical moment for America and our allies. We have important decisions to make that will affect the prospects for peace and prosperity across the world. And today I'm going to talk to you about the objectives I will pursue on this important trip.

My first stop will be Vienna, where I will attend the annual summit between the United States and the European Union. And then I'm going to travel to Budapest to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution. And I'm really looking forward to the trip. Americans have strong ties to the European people. We have warm friendships with European nations. And on my trip this week, we will strengthen our close and growing partnership with the European Union.

America's partnership with the European Union grows from sturdy roots -- our common love of freedom, and our commitment to democratic principles. Those of you graduating today have grown up with a Europe whose major powers are at peace with one another. Yet in the sweep of history, this is a dramatic change. There was a time in history when Europe was the site of bloody conflicts and bitter rivalries. As recently as the last century, Europe was the site of two devastating world wars. Now, because generations have sacrificed for liberty and built strong democracies, the nations of Europe are partners in common union, and neighbors on a continent that's whole, free, and at peace.

A free and peaceful Europe is one of the great achievements of the past century. My generation, and yours, will be judged by what comes next. So America and Europe must work together to advance freedom and democracy. We will cooperate to expand trade and prosperity. We will strengthen our efforts to combat terrorism. And we will stand together to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. (Applause.)

Our work begins with a common commitment to extending the reach of freedom and democracy. On Prime Minister Blair's recent visit to America, he said: "The governments of the world do not all believe in freedom. But the people of the world do." As people who have secured our own freedom, America and Europe have a duty to help others do the same. (Applause.) We're fulfilling that duty together in Belarus, where we support the reformers seeking to erase the stain of dictatorship from Europe. We're fulfilling that duty together in Georgia and Ukraine, where we stand with brave people striving to consolidate democratic gains. We're fulfilling that duty together in the Balkans, where people who have suffered so much have made a choice to live in liberty, and should be welcomed as a part of Europe in the 21st century.

As we saw on September the 11, 2001, the actions of a repressive regime thousands of miles away can have a direct impact on our own security. In this new century, the loss of freedom anywhere is a blow to freedom everywhere. And when freedom advances, people gain an alternative to violence, and the prospects for peace are multiplied and all nations become more secure. So America and Europe have launched bold initiatives to aid democratic reformers across the world, especially in the broader Middle East. We've worked with the United Nations to end the Syrian occupation of Lebanon -- and we will not rest until the Lebanese people enjoy full independence. (Applause.) We're determined to end the conflict in the Holy Land and bring about a solution with two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security. (Applause.)

Our shared commitment to extending freedom and democracy is clear in Afghanistan and Iraq. Together America and Europe have helped bring about a historic transformation in those countries. Two of the world's most dangerous regimes have been removed from power, and the world is better off for it. (Applause.) Al Qaida's training camps have been closed in Afghanistan. Al Qaida's leader in Iraq has been killed. (Applause.) Two violent dictatorships are being replaced with growing democracies that answer to their people, that respect their neighbors, and that serve as allies in the war on terror. Afghanistan and Iraq are taking their rightful place in the free world -- and America and Europe must work tirelessly to help them succeed. (Applause.)

One week ago today, I left Camp David and flew to the capital of a free and democratic Iraq. (Applause.) In Baghdad I met with Prime Minister Maliki and members of his cabinet. The Prime Minister is a man of strong character; he has a clear and practical plan to lead his country forward. He briefed me on the immediate steps he's taking to improve security in Baghdad, to build up Iraq's economy and to reach out to the international community.

The formation of a new government and successful raids on al Qaeda targets in Iraq have created a moment of opportunity. Iraqis must seize this moment -- and we will help them succeed. I assured the Prime Minister that when America gives a commitment, America will keep its word. (Applause.) By helping Prime Minister Maliki's new government achieve its aims, we will expand opportunity for all the Iraqi people, we will inflict a major defeat on the terrorists, and we will show the world the power of a thriving democracy in the heart of the Middle East. (Applause.)

A free and sovereign Iraq requires the strong support of Europe. And some of the most important support for Iraqis is coming from European democracies with recent memories of tyranny -- Poland and Hungary and Romania and Bulgaria and the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Georgia, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Others in Europe have had disagreements with our decisions on Iraq. Yet we've all watched the Iraqi people stand up for their freedom -- and we agree that the success of a democratic government in Baghdad is vital for the Iraqis and for the security of the world.

The European Union has been the world's most -- among the world's most generous financial donors for reconstruction in Iraq. And Europe and America will encourage greater international support to help Prime Minister Maliki implement his plans for recovery. The international community has pledged about $13 billion to help this new government. Yet only $3.5 billion has been paid. This is a critical time for Iraq's young democracy, and assistance from the international community will make an immediate difference. All nations that have pledged money have a responsibility to keep their pledges -- and America and Europe will work together to ensure they do so. (Applause.)

America and Europe also stand together in our determination to widen the circle of prosperity. We're cooperating on projects to develop clean, secure energy sources, especially alternatives to fossil fuel. (Applause.) On the continent of Africa, we're working to strengthen democracy, relieve debt, fight disease, and end the genocide in Darfur. (Applause.) At the World Trade Organization, we're working to lower trade barriers by concluding the Doha talks. America has made a bold proposal to eliminate trade-distorting agriculture subsidies and tariffs -- and I call on Europe to join us, so we can set an example of free and fair trade for the world. (Applause.) By spreading prosperity, America and Europe will create new opportunities for our people, to help alleviate poverty, and deliver hope and dignity and progress to millions across the world. (Applause.)

Together America and Europe are laying the foundations for a future of peace and prosperity. And yet the terrorists are threatening this progress. So at our summit this week, we'll take new steps to strengthen our cooperation on counterterrorism, to improve transportation security, and to crack down on terrorist financing. And we will renew our commitment to support the voices of peace and moderation in the Muslim world, to help provide a hopeful alternative to radicalism. America and Europe must stand united in this war on terror. (Applause.) By being steadfast, and by being strong, we will defeat the enemies of freedom. (Applause.)

America and Europe are also united on one of the most difficult challenges facing the world today, the behavior of the regime in Iran. The leaders of Iran sponsor terror, deny liberty and human rights to their people, and threaten the existence of our ally, Israel. And by pursuing nuclear activities that mask its effort to acquire nuclear weapons, the regime is acting in defiance of its treaty obligations, of the United Nations Security Council, and of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nuclear weapons in the hands of this regime would be a grave threat to people everywhere.

I've discussed the problem of the Iranian regime extensively with leaders in Europe, particularly in Great Britain and Germany and France. I've also consulted closely with the Presidents of Russia and China. We've all agreed on a unified approach to solve this problem diplomatically. The United States has offered to come to the table with our partners and meet with Iran's representatives -- as soon as the Iranian regime fully and verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities. (Applause.) Iran's leaders have a clear choice. We hope they will accept our offer and voluntarily suspend these activities, so we can work out an agreement that will bring Iran real benefits. If Iran's leaders reject our offer, it will result in action before the Security Council, further isolation from the world, and progressively stronger political and economic sanctions.

I've a message for the Iranian regime: America and our partners are united. We have presented a reasonable offer. Iran's leaders should see our proposal for what it is -- an historic opportunity to set their country on a better course. If Iran's leaders want peace and prosperity and a more hopeful future for their people, they should accept our offer, abandon any ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons, and come into compliance with their international obligations.

I've a message for the Iranian people: The United States respects you and your country. We admire your rich history, your vibrant culture, and your many contributions to civilization. When Cyrus the Great led the Iranian people more than 2,500 years ago, he delivered one of the world's first declarations of individual rights, including the right to worship God in freedom. Through the centuries, Iranians have achieved distinction in medicine and science and poetry and philosophy, and countless other fields.

In the 21st century, the people of Iran, especially the talented and educated youth, are among the world's leaders in science and technology. Iranians have a large presence on the Internet, and a desire to make even greater progress, including the development of civilian nuclear energy. This is a legitimate desire. We believe the Iranian people should enjoy the benefits of a truly peaceful program to use nuclear reactors to generate electric power. So America supports the Iranian people's rights to develop nuclear energy peacefully, with proper international safeguards.

The people of Iran, like people everywhere, also want and deserve an opportunity to determine their own future, an economy that rewards their intelligence and talents, and a society that allows them to pursue their dreams. I believe Iranians would thrive if they were given more opportunities to travel and study abroad, and do business with the rest of the world. Here in the United States, Iranian Americans have used their freedom to advance in society and make tremendous contributions in areas from business to medicine, to academics.

To help provide more opportunities for the people of Iran, we will look for new ways to increase contact between Americans and Iranians, especially in education and culture, sports and tourism. We'll provide more than $75 million this year to promote openness and freedom for the Iranian people. These funds will allow us to expand and improve radio and television broadcasts to the people of Iran. These funds will support Iranian human rights advocates and civil society organizations. And these funds will promote student and faculty exchanges, so we can build bridges of understanding between our people.

Americans believe the future of Iran will be decided by the people of Iran -- and we believe that future can be one of progress and prosperity and achievement. We look forward to the day when our nations are friends, and when the people of Iran enjoy the full fruits of liberty, and play a leading role to establish peace in our world. (Applause.) The advance of freedom is the calling of our time -- and the men and women of the United States Merchant Marine Academy are answering that call. In a few moments, you'll walk through Vickery Gate and leave the Academy that's been your home. You leave with a bachelor's degree, a license as a Merchant Marine officer, and a commission in one of the branches of our Armed Services. And you leave with something else: The great truth that duty and honor and courage are not just words; they are virtues that sustain a free people, people who are determined to live under self-government. They're the virtues that will be your anchor and compass in a life of purpose and service. These are the virtues that America demands of those entrusted with leading her sons and daughters in uniform. And these are the virtues that America has come to expect from the blue and grey.

We see the devotion to duty and honor and country in the life of one of this Academy's finest graduates, Aaron Seesan. Aaron was an Ohio boy who grew up dreaming of being a soldier. He brought that dream with him to this Academy -- and when he walked through these gates three years ago, he carried on his shoulders the gold bar of a second lieutenant in the United States Army. After entering the Army, Lieutenant Seesan trained as a combat engineer. And he was serving at Fort Lewis, Washington, when a group of soldiers who were based at the fort were struck by a suicide bomb in Iraq. Two of the men were killed. And that's when this young lieutenant volunteered to go to Iraq to take the place of a wounded platoon leader.

When Lieutenant Seesan arrived in Iraq, some of his fellow soldiers wondered what was the Army thinking. His platoon sergeant said, "I didn't know what the hell a Merchant Marine graduate was doing here in the 73rd Engineering Company." The sergeant quickly changed his mind when he saw Lieutenant Seesan in action, taking care of his men as they patrolled the most dangerous roads in and around Mosul. In May 2005, he was leading a routine sweep of a city street when a bomb exploded and hit the fuel tank of his Humvee. Those who were with him recall his last words: "Take charge, Sergeant Arnold, and take care of the others."

He died on May 22 -- on National Maritime Day. For his act of bravery, Lieutenant Seesan was awarded the Bronze Star. And the campus memorial that bears his name will remind all who come here of Kings Point commitment to service above self.

Aaron Seesan gave his life freely. While still in high school, he wrote a poem that now seems prophetic. He wrote, "Mourn not my terrible death, but celebrate my cause in life." Aaron's cause in life was freedom, and as you take your place as officers in our Armed Forces, I ask you to celebrate the freedom for which Aaron fought and died.

America has invested in you, and she has high expectations. My call to you is this: Trust your instincts, and use the skills you were taught here to give back to your nation. Do not be afraid of mistakes; learn from them. Show leadership and character in whatever you do. The world lies before you. I ask you to go forth with faith in America, and confidence in the eternal promise of liberty.

In all that lies ahead, I wish you fair winds and following seas. As I look out at the men and women before me, I will leave here knowing that you will bring honor to our nation, and to this Academy that has prepared you for the challenges you will face. May God steer thee well, Kings Point. And may God bless America. (Applause.)

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:10 pm Post subject: President Bush To the people of Iran

White House wrote:

President Bush Addresses United Nations General Assembly
United Nations
New York, New York

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060919-4.htmlTo the people of Iran: The United States respects you; we respect your country. We admire your rich history, your vibrant culture, and your many contributions to civilization. You deserve an opportunity to determine your own future, an economy that rewards your intelligence and your talents, and a society that allows you to fulfill your tremendous potential. The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism, and fuel extremism, and pursue nuclear weapons. The United Nations has passed a clear resolution requiring that the regime in Tehran meet its international obligations. Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions. Despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran's pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program. We're working toward a diplomatic solution to this crisis. And as we do, we look to the day when you can live in freedom -- and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace.
To the people of Syria: Your land is home to a great people with a proud tradition of learning and commerce. Today your rulers have allowed your country to become a crossroad for terrorism. In your midst, Hamas and Hezbollah are working to destabilize the region, and your government is turning your country into a tool of Iran. This is increasing your country's isolation from the world. Your government must choose a better way forward by ending its support for terror, and living in peace with your neighbors, and opening the way to a better life for you and your families.

To the people of Darfur: You have suffered unspeakable violence, and my nation has called these atrocities what they are -- genocide. For the last two years, America joined with the international community to provide emergency food aid and support for an African Union peacekeeping force. Yet your suffering continues. The world must step forward to provide additional humanitarian aid -- and we must strengthen the African Union force that has done good work, but is not strong enough to protect you. The Security Council has approved a resolution that would transform the African Union force into a blue-helmeted force that is larger and more robust. To increase its strength and effectiveness, NATO nations should provide logistics and other support. The regime in Khartoum is stopping the deployment of this force. If the Sudanese government does not approve this peacekeeping force quickly, the United Nations must act. Your lives and the credibility of the United Nations is at stake. So today I'm announcing that I'm naming a Presidential Special Envoy -- former USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios -- to lead America's efforts to resolve the outstanding disputes and help bring peace to your land.

ActivistChat Response wrote:

From Iranian Activists and FREE people of Iran To President Bush:
Thank You Mr. President for your kind words. We respect and admire USA the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Would you please consider the Iranian Activists demand to arrest the Taazi Islamic Fascist Amadinejad in USA for crimes against humanity, creating fear society, 1978 American hostages and 1000s of Terror ....

We need help and great actions for freeing Iran. The 70 Million Iranian hostages can not open the prison door from inside the big prison Iran. Détente with Islamic Fascists is betraying the cause of liberty and appeasing tyranny.

Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 4:51 pm Post subject: I think this man should be charged with incitement of hate

Quote:

Nobel prize winner Elie Wiesel, threatened to resign from the prestigious group because of the invitation to Ahmadinejad, which was originally to be a formal dinner.
I think this man should be charged with incitement of hate and genocide.

A planned appearance at a New York think tank on Wednesday has caused new controversy, with Jewish leaders forcing the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) to take the encounter behind closed doors.

Some members of the CFR, including Holocaust survivor and Nobel prize winner Elie Wiesel, threatened to resign from the prestigious group because of the invitation to Ahmadinejad, which was originally to be a formal dinner.

"He's the number one Holocaust denier in the world," said Wiesel. "He's repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel. I think this man should be charged with incitement of hate and genocide."

Wiesel said he protested to CFR president Richard Haass to at least cancel the meal. Haass eventually downgraded the event to a "working meeting" at a New York hotel.

The CFR would not give the time or venue for the meeting and said that not even a transcript of Ahmadinejad's remarks would be provided.

But "there's a big difference between bad guys and utterly evil people," declared Elan Steinberg, former executive director of the World Jewish Congress.

Israel made a rare criticism of its US ally for allowing Ahmadinejad to enter the United States to attend the UN General Assembly.

"I ask myself if the US administration did not have a possibility, even at the price of breaching its agreements with the UN, not to grant him entry," Israel's UN ambassador Dan Gillerman told Israeli public radio.

The United States is obliged to permit world leaders to attend UN meetings at the organisation's headquarters in New York.

The Israeli delegation headed by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni left the assembly chamber during Ahmadinejad's speech on Tuesday in protest.

The United States left only a low ranking official to listen. There were many empty seats in the chamber because of the late hour of the speech, but Ahmadinejad's comments have been widely reported around the world.

It seems in the jungle of Islamic Fascists appeasers (Realists ..) and recent idiot recipients of the Nobel peace prize (Ms. Shirin Ebadi …) there is one honorable Nobel prize winner like Mr. Elie Wiese who stands for something and ask for some real actions from UN to expel Islamic Fascists Occupiers of Iran.

As world leaders convened for the second day of the United Nations General Assembly, tens of thousands of supporters of Israel gathered across the street from United Nations headquarters to protest President Ahmadinejad of Iran and to call for the unconditional release of the Israeli soldiers kidnapped on July 12. The international and national leaders who stepped up to the podium also challenged the United Nations to take preventative action against the Iranian leader who threatens the Jewish people with genocide.

The National Solidarity Rally, sponsored by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the Jewish Community Relations Council, sent a message of solidarity with Israel and support for the war against global terrorism and its state sponsors.

"This is a message to the leaders of the world that we reject Ahmadinejad and his message of hate and the immorality he represents," the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents, Malcolm Hoenlein, said.

"We stand united today against the terrorist and the hostage takers. We say to them terror will not defeat us," Ms. Livni said. "We will not rest until the Israeli hostages, our sons, come home to the embrace of a loving nation."

The wife of kidnapped soldier Ehud Goldwasser, Karni Goldwasser, demanded of the United Nations, "Stop talking and start to act," to bring her husband back home.

Mr. Wiesel chastised the United Nations for welcoming Mr. Ahmadinejad to the General Assembly at all. "A man who brings shame to the world has no place anywhere. He must be excluded from all groups of international nations," he said.

Make no mistake: boring as it was, the president's speech to the UN today was one of the most important of his presidency. It marks the final fizzling out of his Iran policy of the past three years.

Since 2003, the Bush administration has pursued a diplomatic track against the emerging Iranian nuclear program. The tough talk of the "axis of evil" speech of 2002 faded into the background. Instead, the US would await the investigations of the International Atomic Energy Authority. While waiting, it deputed its allies Britain, France, and Germany to negotiate directly with Iran to discover whether any package of incentives might persuade the mullahs to reconsider their determination to acquire nuclear weapons.

Both those policies have reached their dead end. Iran has repeatedly deceived and rebuffed the IAEA. The direct negotiations have likewise failed, victims of Iranian intransigence and duplicity. Now the whole matter has been referred to the Security Council. And the Security Council is doing and will do ... precisely nothing. President Chirac of France just this very morning announced that he would not support any comprehensive Security Council sanctions program against Iran. Russia and China can be presumed to oppose even more firmly.

Did the president call on the Security Council to reconsider? Did he challenge the Iranian bomb program before the world? He did not. He said nothing about it. There will be no UN action, no Security Council sanctions, nothing. Not that they necessarily would have done any good, but they are out of the game. America's dwindling list of Iran options has dwindled further to just two: unilateral military action without any semblance of international approval to pre-empt the Iranian bomb program - or acquiescence in that program.

And I'm guessing that the option to emerge will be: acquiescence.

===================

Ambassador Hakimi wrote:

Dears,
We had washed our hands from the Yanks long time ago!
We are neither shocked nor surprised. They have to look after their own creation or child, meaning IRI.
Do not think that if the Republicans are in power it makes any difference from the Jimmy Carter era. They are the same lot.
Hashem

--------------------------------------

cyrus wrote:

No "Grand Bargain" for Iran
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com

In yet another effort to second-guess Bush administration foreign policy, the Brahmins of Stability have invited Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a pow-wow in New York this week, aimed at promoting a "grand bargain" between the U.S. and Iran .

The CFR invite to the man who has said publicly he wants to wipe Israel off the map and destroy America drew a quick response from Senator Rick Santorum, R-PA.

"President Ahmadinejad does not afford his own people the freedom of speech," Santorum wrote on Monday to CFR president Richard Haas, a former State Department official and prot駩 of Brent Scowcroft. "By allowing him the opportunity to address a public forum in the United States , you would be sending the wrong message to the people of Iran ."

The CFR has consistently promoted a "grand bargain" with the regime in Tehran , a policy it laid out in detail in a 2004 white paper written by CFR staffer Ray Takeyh and his wife, Susan Maloney. As an official at the State Department office of Policy Planning, Ms. Maloney-Takeyh has been instrumental in blocking U.S. government funding to pro-democracy groups in Iran , which she has called "too confrontational."

The 2004 CFR report, which I describe in more detail in my book, Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran, was issued under the imprimatur of CFR heavy-hitters Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft.

Funny how all this fits together.

The interests of the Council on Foreign Relations and of many large American corporations in forging commercial and diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran run directly counter to the U.S. national interest, the interests of the Iranian people, and to the president’s freedom agenda.

The CFR and certain large U.S. corporations (CONOCO and Boeing among others) can’t see any good reason why they should abandon a potentially good market in Iran to competitors in France , Germany , or Japan .

What’s refreshing about this argument is the fact that we haven’t heard it made with such forcefulness and such wantonness since the Clinton years. And that is also what is disturbing about it. It’s back.

In the final months of his presidency, Clinton appointed a "special ambassador" to negotiate a "grand bargain" with Iran , and came very close to making a deal that would have put an end to the aspirations to freedom of the Iranian people for a generation. Until now, however, the Bush administration has rejected such an approach.

Last week, at a conference in Washington, D.C., a number of CFR "experts" and protoges tried to paint a pretty face on negotiations with Iran , including left-wing financier George Soros.

They described a recent "private" dinner in Boston with mullah Mohammad Khatami, Iran ’s former president, who said that Iran wanted talks with the United States , but was not willing to give up uranium enrichment as the price.

That’s okay, said CFR expert Charles Kupchan. "The key is to get to a point where the United States and Iran can build a relationship built on trust," he said. "We need to buy time for Iran to come around and make a deal."

But as Ahmadinejad told the United Nations on Tuesday, the only deal Iran wants is one that allows it to develop nuclear capabilities that will give it the technology and know-how to build nuclear weapons at a time of its choosing.

Apparently seduced by the CFR siren song, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and her top advisor, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, have revived the failed policy of seeking to negotiate with Tehran ’s leaders.

There can be no doubt as to the outcome. Why? Because the Europeans have been "negotiating" with Iran over a variety of issues since the early 1990s, and have absolutely zero to show for it.

In the 1990s, the Euro-appeasers called it "constructive engagement." The idea was to talk to Iran about specific human rights violations – such as Iranian intelligence agents traveling to Berlin and assassinating Iranian Kurdish dissidents, as they did in 1992 – and hope they wouldn’t repeat the offense, so Europe would actually have to do something about it.

After a laborious, four-year legal proceeding, a German court issued arrest warrants for then President Hashem i-Rafsanjani (touted by the CFR as a "moderate"), Supreme leader Ali Khamenei, intelligence minister Ali Fallahian, and Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati. Wringing their hands, the Europeans temporarily withdrew their ambassadors from Tehran …and continued commercial relations without skipping a beat.

Since 2003, the Europeans have been "negotiating" with Tehran ’s mullahs over their previously undeclared (and thus, illegal) nuclear program. Here we are, more than three years later, and Iran continues to enrich uranium, in utter defiance of the Europeans, the IAEA, and now the UN Security Council. And Condi and the CFR actually believe we are going to achieve something through yet more negotiations?

Bang! Bang! The Witch is Dead – or at least, she should be.

To the credit of the CFR’s Charles Kupchan, he rightly concluded at last week’s conference at the New America Foundation that the current U.S. policy is leading directly to one of two thoroughly unacceptable results: U.S. acceptance of a nuclear-armed Iran , or war.

But the CFR prescription of a "grand bargain" also leads to war, because it empowers the current clerical leadership in Iran , and that leadership is hell-bent on war. Even worse: over the past two years, seeing the U.S. falter in Iraq , they have come to the conclusion that they even can beat us.

If I were a cynical Washington Beltway rat, I would conclude that the State Department and the CIA (which favors this failed policy, because they are incapable of recruiting spies in Iran ), knows that negotiating with Iran will fail, and will only allow the Iranian regime to buy time to perfect its nuclear technology.

They will say – indeed, they say so today – that no one has proposed a better alternative.

But that is patently false. Congress has passed any number of bills, which have been signed into law, that call on the administration to fund bonafide Iranian opposition groups and opposition radio and television radio broadcasts. Instead, the State Department (perhaps, instructed by the CIA) has chosen to fund charlatans and fakes.

For example:

$2 million has gone to a pseudo think tank at Yale University to document human rights abuses that others have been documenting for years with little or no U.S. government support;
$50 million has been pledged to expand Voice of America television broadcasts that give equal time to Hezbollah representatives (that’s the VOA’s old "fairness" doctrine at work), while VOA’s more effective (but less expensive) short-wave radio broadcasts have been given the axe; and
Close to $1 million has gone to "reformers" who have recently left Iran and have been making U.S. government-sponsored tours around America , to drum up support for an internal "reformation" of the Islamic regime in Tehran .
In the meantime, folks like ex-CFR staffer Susan Maloney at the State Department have vetoed funding of Iranian opposition radio and TV broadcasts, and training for opposition groups inside Iran , on the grounds that it might offend the Tehran regime.

There can be no doubt: The State Department and the CIA want the United States to fail in stopping Iran from going nuclear, because they fear confronting the mullahs running the show.

But the temerity of the CIA and the State Department today is going to cost the lives of U.S. servicemen and servicewomen tomorrow. And when the going gets rough, those advocates of "caution" and "negotiation" will happily whistle past the graveyard as the bombs and missiles fly, and whisper to the press that it is "Rumsfeld’s war."

Because war is what we’re going to get if we continue the present course.

When President Bush and his advisers decided to allow President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran into the country to address the United Nations, their strategy was simple: containment.

There would be no visits to other cities where he could denounce Washington or question Israel’s legitimacy. There would be no opportunities, beyond his speech to the General Assembly, to turn questions about his nuclear intentions into repeated diatribes about America’s nuclear arsenal.

It turned out that Mr. Ahmadinejad had a Plan B.

The scope of his determination to dominate not only the airwaves but the debate became evident yesterday evening, when he entered a hotel conference room on the East Side with a jaunty smile, a wave and an air of supreme confidence.

Over the objections of the administration and Jewish groups that boycotted the event, Mr. Ahmadinejad, the man who has become the defiant face of Iran, squared off with the nation’s foreign policy establishment, parrying questions for an hour and three-quarters with two dozen members of the Council on Foreign Relations, then ending the evening by asking whether they were simply shills for the Bush administration.

Never raising his voice and thanking each questioner with a tone that oozed polite hostility, he spent 40 minutes questioning the evidence that the Holocaust ever happened — “I think we should allow more impartial studies to be done on this,” he said after hearing an account of an 81-year-old member, the insurance mogul Maurice R. Greenberg, who saw the Dachau concentration camp as Germany fell — and he refused to even consider Washington’s proposal for Russia to provide Iran with nuclear reactor fuel, and take it back once it is used. (Without the capacity to enrich fuel on its own soil Iran would be unable to make fuel suitable for a nuclear weapon.)

He traced the history of 50 years of unfilled deals with the United States, Germany, France and others — skipping over the Iranian revolution and the hostage-taking that followed — and concluded, “How can we rely on these partners.” His solution? The United States should shut down its own fuel production and “within five years, we will sell you our own fuel, with a 50 percent discount!” He settled back into his seat with a broad smile that some in the group described as a smirk.

The decision by the council’s president, Richard N. Haass, to invite Mr. Ahmadinejad to the session touched off a rare outcry protest in an organization whose meetings are usually as staid as the portraits of long-forgotten diplomats on its walls.

Mr. Haass, who ran the policy planning branch of the State Department during Mr. Bush’s first term, first had to fend off senior administration officials who had argued that he should not give Mr. Ahmadinejad the legitimacy of a hearing — especially with the likes of Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser under President Bush’s father, or Robert D. Blackwill, who directed Iraq policy at the White House under Condoleezza Rice.

“It’s fair to say that Dr. Rice thought this was a bad idea,” one senior State Department official said. “A really, really bad idea.”

So did leaders of several Jewish groups, whom Mr. Haass invited — and who promptly asked if the council would have invited Hitler in the 1930’s. “Some of us considered quitting to make it clear how offensive this is,” said Abraham H. Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, who was one of the Jewish leaders whose attendance Mr. Haass sought.

But after a flurry of phone calls, including with Elie Wiesel, the writer and Holocaust survivor, they decided against a mass resignation — particularly after the council made the session a “meeting” rather than a dinner. (There were light hors d’oeuvres on the side; Mr. Ahmadinejad never touched them.)

“It is more offensive to break bread with the guy,” Mr. Foxman said. “I thought dinner was crossing the line.”

But the council pointed out that it had served as host for many world leaders equally skilled at repressing dissidents, developing suspected weapons programs, shutting down a free press and denouncing Israel.

“We’ve had Castro,” said Lisa Shields, the council’s communications director, ticking off the gallery of leaders Washington considered rogues. “We’ve had Arafat, and Mugabe. We’ve had Gerry Adams.”

The greeting yesterday evening was not exactly overwhelming. There were no introductory handshakes, no diplomatic niceties. All of the Americans who were invited to attend, including four journalists, were members of the council. Iran’s effort to bring in television cameras was deflected, apparently because the council feared that the session would be used for political purposes in Iran, where Mr. Ahmadinejad is presumably eager to show that even if President Bush refused to meet him, he got his message across.

In fact he did — meeting academics in the morning and religious leaders at midday, and speeding from the council meeting for another television interview. He did most of this without leaving the Intercontinental Hotel on 48th Street in Manhattan.

The council would not say how many of the invitees had refused to attend. But members said they knew of more than a half-dozen, from the publisher Mort Zuckerman to the former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright. It is unclear why some declined. A few claimed scheduling conflicts, rather than moral objections.

The handful who had a chance to quiz the Iranian president went out of their way, within the limits of diplomatic etiquette, to make clear to Mr. Ahmadinejad that they thought his characterizations of Israel and the Holocaust were repugnant and that his nuclear strategy was self-defeating. He gave no ground.

When Martin S. Indyk, a former American ambassador to Israel, told Mr. Ahmadinejad that Iran “did everything possible to destroy’’ efforts to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the president said, “If you believe Iran is the reason for the failure, you are making a second mistake.’’ Why, he asked, should the Palestinians be asked to “pay for an event they had nothing to do with’’ in World War II, saying that they had nothing to do with the systematic killing of Jews — if those killings, he added, had happened at all.

“In World War II about 60 million people were killed,’’ he said at one point, when pressed again on his refusal to accept that the Holocaust happened. “Two million were military. Why is such prominence given to a small portion of those 60 million?’’

A few minutes later, he asked a question himself: “In the Council on Foreign Relations, is there any voice of support for the Palestinians?’’

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s habit of answering every question about Iranian policy with a question about American policy was clearly wearing on some of the members, but at the end they acknowledged that he was about as skillful an interlocutor as they had ever encountered. “He is a master of counterpunch, deception, circumlocution,’’ Mr. Scowcroft said, shaking his head. Mr. Blackwill emerged from the conversation wondering how the United States would ever be able to negotiate with this Iranian government.

“If this man represents the prevailing government opinion in Tehran, we are heading for a massive confrontation with Iran,” he said.

In fact, on the main issue speeding the two countries toward confrontation, Iran’s nuclear program, the president was unwilling to discuss specifics. He insisted that he was fully cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency, even though it had pages of questions his government refused to answer.

Instead, he steered the whole conversation toward Iran’s rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, ignoring an effort by Ashton B. Carter, a Harvard professor, to get him to answer whether the nuclear effort was worth the cost to Iranian society.

“The U.S. doesn’t speak for the whole world,’’ Mr. Ahmadinejad responded, noting that at a meeting of nonaligned nations in Cuba over the weekend “118 countries defended the right of Iran to enrich.’’

And as he left, it was with a jab to his hosts. “At the beginning of the session, you said you were an independent group,’’ he said. “But almost everything that I was asked came from a government position.’’ Then he smiled, thanked everyone and left the room with a light step

.

____________________________________________

cyrus wrote:

White House wrote:

President Bush Addresses United Nations General Assembly
United Nations
New York, New York

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060919-4.htmlTo the people of Iran: The United States respects you; we respect your country. We admire your rich history, your vibrant culture, and your many contributions to civilization. You deserve an opportunity to determine your own future, an economy that rewards your intelligence and your talents, and a society that allows you to fulfill your tremendous potential. The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism, and fuel extremism, and pursue nuclear weapons. The United Nations has passed a clear resolution requiring that the regime in Tehran meet its international obligations. Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions. Despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran's pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program. We're working toward a diplomatic solution to this crisis. And as we do, we look to the day when you can live in freedom -- and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace.
To the people of Syria: Your land is home to a great people with a proud tradition of learning and commerce. Today your rulers have allowed your country to become a crossroad for terrorism. In your midst, Hamas and Hezbollah are working to destabilize the region, and your government is turning your country into a tool of Iran. This is increasing your country's isolation from the world. Your government must choose a better way forward by ending its support for terror, and living in peace with your neighbors, and opening the way to a better life for you and your families.

To the people of Darfur: You have suffered unspeakable violence, and my nation has called these atrocities what they are -- genocide. For the last two years, America joined with the international community to provide emergency food aid and support for an African Union peacekeeping force. Yet your suffering continues. The world must step forward to provide additional humanitarian aid -- and we must strengthen the African Union force that has done good work, but is not strong enough to protect you. The Security Council has approved a resolution that would transform the African Union force into a blue-helmeted force that is larger and more robust. To increase its strength and effectiveness, NATO nations should provide logistics and other support. The regime in Khartoum is stopping the deployment of this force. If the Sudanese government does not approve this peacekeeping force quickly, the United Nations must act. Your lives and the credibility of the United Nations is at stake. So today I'm announcing that I'm naming a Presidential Special Envoy -- former USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios -- to lead America's efforts to resolve the outstanding disputes and help bring peace to your land.

ActivistChat Response wrote:

From Iranian Activists and FREE people of Iran To President Bush:
Thank You Mr. President for your kind words. We respect and admire USA the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Would you please consider the Iranian Activists demand to arrest the Taazi Islamic Fascist Amadinejad in USA for crimes against humanity, creating fear society, 1978 American hostages and 1000s of Terror ....

We need help and great actions for freeing Iran. The 70 Million Iranian hostages can not open the prison door from inside the big prison Iran. Détente with Islamic Fascists is betraying the cause of liberty and appeasing tyranny.

The Bush administration has refused to hold direct talks with Iran until it agrees to suspend enrichment of uranium, which the U.S. fears will be used to build nuclear weapons.

"The United States should not be afraid to talk to anyone. They should not be reluctant and shouldn't have too many conditions," said Clinton, who said his own offer to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's predecessor had been rebuffed.

In past 6 years Bush Admin had talked with Islamic Fascists indirectly and directly via Khalizad secret meetings ...
President Clinton is asking President Bush to repeat past 27 years mistakes again ....

The US government should not talk with any Islamic Fascist regime members who does not respect Human Rights, Free Society , Secular democracy and does not condemn Hezbollah ....

In yet another effort to second-guess Bush administration foreign policy, the Brahmins of Stability have invited Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a pow-wow in New York this week, aimed at promoting a "grand bargain" between the U.S. and Iran .

The CFR invite to the man who has said publicly he wants to wipe Israel off the map and destroy America drew a quick response from Senator Rick Santorum, R-PA.

"President Ahmadinejad does not afford his own people the freedom of speech," Santorum wrote on Monday to CFR president Richard Haas, a former State Department official and prot駩 of Brent Scowcroft. "By allowing him the opportunity to address a public forum in the United States , you would be sending the wrong message to the people of Iran ."

The CFR has consistently promoted a "grand bargain" with the regime in Tehran , a policy it laid out in detail in a 2004 white paper written by CFR staffer Ray Takeyh and his wife, Susan Maloney. As an official at the State Department office of Policy Planning, Ms. Maloney-Takeyh has been instrumental in blocking U.S. government funding to pro-democracy groups in Iran , which she has called "too confrontational."

The 2004 CFR report, which I describe in more detail in my book, Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran, was issued under the imprimatur of CFR heavy-hitters Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft.

Funny how all this fits together.

The interests of the Council on Foreign Relations and of many large American corporations in forging commercial and diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran run directly counter to the U.S. national interest, the interests of the Iranian people, and to the president’s freedom agenda.

The CFR and certain large U.S. corporations (CONOCO and Boeing among others) can’t see any good reason why they should abandon a potentially good market in Iran to competitors in France , Germany , or Japan .

What’s refreshing about this argument is the fact that we haven’t heard it made with such forcefulness and such wantonness since the Clinton years. And that is also what is disturbing about it. It’s back.

In the final months of his presidency, Clinton appointed a "special ambassador" to negotiate a "grand bargain" with Iran , and came very close to making a deal that would have put an end to the aspirations to freedom of the Iranian people for a generation. Until now, however, the Bush administration has rejected such an approach.

Last week, at a conference in Washington, D.C., a number of CFR "experts" and protoges tried to paint a pretty face on negotiations with Iran , including left-wing financier George Soros.

They described a recent "private" dinner in Boston with mullah Mohammad Khatami, Iran ’s former president, who said that Iran wanted talks with the United States , but was not willing to give up uranium enrichment as the price.

That’s okay, said CFR expert Charles Kupchan. "The key is to get to a point where the United States and Iran can build a relationship built on trust," he said. "We need to buy time for Iran to come around and make a deal."

But as Ahmadinejad told the United Nations on Tuesday, the only deal Iran wants is one that allows it to develop nuclear capabilities that will give it the technology and know-how to build nuclear weapons at a time of its choosing.

Apparently seduced by the CFR siren song, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and her top advisor, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, have revived the failed policy of seeking to negotiate with Tehran ’s leaders.

There can be no doubt as to the outcome. Why? Because the Europeans have been "negotiating" with Iran over a variety of issues since the early 1990s, and have absolutely zero to show for it.

In the 1990s, the Euro-appeasers called it "constructive engagement." The idea was to talk to Iran about specific human rights violations – such as Iranian intelligence agents traveling to Berlin and assassinating Iranian Kurdish dissidents, as they did in 1992 – and hope they wouldn’t repeat the offense, so Europe would actually have to do something about it.

After a laborious, four-year legal proceeding, a German court issued arrest warrants for then President Hashem i-Rafsanjani (touted by the CFR as a "moderate"), Supreme leader Ali Khamenei, intelligence minister Ali Fallahian, and Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati. Wringing their hands, the Europeans temporarily withdrew their ambassadors from Tehran …and continued commercial relations without skipping a beat.

Since 2003, the Europeans have been "negotiating" with Tehran ’s mullahs over their previously undeclared (and thus, illegal) nuclear program. Here we are, more than three years later, and Iran continues to enrich uranium, in utter defiance of the Europeans, the IAEA, and now the UN Security Council. And Condi and the CFR actually believe we are going to achieve something through yet more negotiations?

Bang! Bang! The Witch is Dead – or at least, she should be.

To the credit of the CFR’s Charles Kupchan, he rightly concluded at last week’s conference at the New America Foundation that the current U.S. policy is leading directly to one of two thoroughly unacceptable results: U.S. acceptance of a nuclear-armed Iran , or war.

But the CFR prescription of a "grand bargain" also leads to war, because it empowers the current clerical leadership in Iran , and that leadership is hell-bent on war. Even worse: over the past two years, seeing the U.S. falter in Iraq , they have come to the conclusion that they even can beat us.

If I were a cynical Washington Beltway rat, I would conclude that the State Department and the CIA (which favors this failed policy, because they are incapable of recruiting spies in Iran ), knows that negotiating with Iran will fail, and will only allow the Iranian regime to buy time to perfect its nuclear technology.

They will say – indeed, they say so today – that no one has proposed a better alternative.

But that is patently false. Congress has passed any number of bills, which have been signed into law, that call on the administration to fund bonafide Iranian opposition groups and opposition radio and television radio broadcasts. Instead, the State Department (perhaps, instructed by the CIA) has chosen to fund charlatans and fakes.

For example:

$2 million has gone to a pseudo think tank at Yale University to document human rights abuses that others have been documenting for years with little or no U.S. government support;
$50 million has been pledged to expand Voice of America television broadcasts that give equal time to Hezbollah representatives (that’s the VOA’s old "fairness" doctrine at work), while VOA’s more effective (but less expensive) short-wave radio broadcasts have been given the axe; and
Close to $1 million has gone to "reformers" who have recently left Iran and have been making U.S. government-sponsored tours around America , to drum up support for an internal "reformation" of the Islamic regime in Tehran .
In the meantime, folks like ex-CFR staffer Susan Maloney at the State Department have vetoed funding of Iranian opposition radio and TV broadcasts, and training for opposition groups inside Iran , on the grounds that it might offend the Tehran regime.

There can be no doubt: The State Department and the CIA want the United States to fail in stopping Iran from going nuclear, because they fear confronting the mullahs running the show.

But the temerity of the CIA and the State Department today is going to cost the lives of U.S. servicemen and servicewomen tomorrow. And when the going gets rough, those advocates of "caution" and "negotiation" will happily whistle past the graveyard as the bombs and missiles fly, and whisper to the press that it is "Rumsfeld’s war."

Because war is what we’re going to get if we continue the present course.

London, Sep. 22 - In an exclusive interview with CNN, United States President George W. Bush outlined his administration's position over Iran's nuclear program and the threats by hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to destroy Israel.

The interview aired on September 20. The following are excerpts of the interview:

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: You're here in New York. The president of Iran is here in New York. You have a chance -- I don't know if you still have a chance, but you had a chance to meet with him. Given the stakes involved -- a nuclear confrontation -- what do you have to lose by sitting down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

U.S. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Our position is very clear to the Iranians, that if they want to sit down with American officials, that they first must verifiably suspend their enrichment program. They know our position, the world knows our position, and I clarified it at the United Nations over the past couple of days.

BLITZER: But if it would help -- if it would help to sit down, talk to them and try to convince them. You know, there have been other moments where great leaders have made that major decision, have a breakthrough -- Nixon going to China, Sadat going to Jerusalem. What would be wrong to just sit down with them and tell them, you know what, here are the options before you?

BUSH: Yes, well, he knows the options before him. I've made that very clear. Secondly, Wolf, in order for there to be effective diplomacy, you can't keep changing your word. At an important moment in these negotiations with the EU3 and Iran, we made it clear we would come to the table, but we would come to the table only if they verifiably suspended their enrichment program.

And the reason that's important, that they verifiably suspend, is because we don't want them to have the technologies necessary to be able to build a nuclear weapon. A nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran in the middle of the Middle East would be a very destabilizing and troubling occurrence.

BLITZER: India and Pakistan already have a nuclear weapon. Israel has a nuclear weapon. Why would it be so bad if this Iranian regime had a nuclear weapon?

BUSH: This Iranian regime is -- promotes militias like Hezbollah to create instability. This Iranian regime has made it abundantly clear that they would like to destroy Israel, who is our ally.

BLITZER: Do you think they would drop a bomb or launch a missile on Israel?

BUSH: Wolf, my judgment is you've got to take everybody's word seriously in this world. Again, you can't just hope for the best. You've got to assume that the leader, when he says that he would like to destroy Israel means what he says. If you take -- if you say, well, gosh, maybe he doesn't mean it, and you turn out to be wrong, you have not done your duty as a world leader.

BLITZER: So you take him seriously at that?

BUSH: Absolutely I take him seriously, just like I take al Qaeda seriously when they say they're going to attack us again, just like I take these extremists seriously when they say they're trying to disrupt democracy.

BLITZER: George Voinovich, the Republican senator from Ohio, has compared him to Hitler.

BUSH: Yes, you know, I mean, people have got strong opinions about him, and I can understand why. He's a -- look, Olmert -- Prime Minister Olmert of Israel reaches out to President Abbas of the Palestinian territories to try to help establish a democracy, and there's an unprovoked attack by Hezbollah on Israel.

Hezbollah's funded and armed by Iran. Iran wants to stop the advance of democracy and peace, and I can understand why people have strong opinions about the Iranian regime. Our goal is to have a diplomatic solution, starting with convincing the Iranians that they either face isolation and possible sanctions if they don't give up their weapons programs.

BLITZER: The foreign minister of Israel told me the other day that they believe the Israelis -- there's only a few months left, a few months of a window, before they get to a point where there's literally a point of no return and they've learned how to enrich uranium and effectively could go forward and build a bomb. How much time does the world have to resolve this?

BUSH: First, if I were the Israeli foreign minister, I'd be deeply concerned about somebody in my neighborhood whose stated objective was the destruction of my country, and the desire of that country to end up with the capacity to do so. And so I can understand her concerns. I'm not going to discuss with you our intelligence on the subject, but time is of the essence.

BLITZER: Is it a few months though?

BUSH: Well, time is of the essence, and that's why here at the United Nations I spoke with our allies. Condi Rice met last night with foreign ministers of the EU3 and Russia, and I think China was there as well, urging them to follow through on the resolution we got passed at the United Nations Security Council. I'm concerned that Iran is trying to stall, and to try to buy time, and therefore it seems like a smart policy is to push this issue along as hard as we can and we are.

BLITZER: Because a lot of experts say short of regime change in Iran, or military action, there's no way this leader in Tehran is going to give up that nuclear ambition.

BUSH: We'll find out. The country can face isolation. They could face, you know, sanctions, or they can choose a better course. The choice is the Iranian leader's choice. I spoke yesterday at the U.N. and I spoke directly to the Iranian people.

It's important for the Iranian people to know this, that we respect their heritage, we respect their history, we respect their tradition. We believe this can be a great nation if the government, you know, relies upon the talents of its people and encourages and nurtures those talents.

BLITZER: Is there anything you heard from him in his address last night or your analysts that was encouraging?

WASHINGTON -- In a bitterly worded letter, the Israeli ambassador to the United States on Friday accused the Council on Foreign Relations of making a “terrible mistake” by inviting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to a meeting with the group earlier this week.

“Some of those upset with the council’s decision have compared it to hypothetically inviting Hitler to a meeting in the 1930’s,” the ambassador, Daniel Ayalon, wrote to the council’s president, Richard N. Haass. “In fact, meeting with Ahmadinejad is worse: Hitler did not openly call for genocide in the 1930’s, and today we have the lessons of the 1930’s to guide us. Foremost among those lessons is that appeasing fanatics like Hitler and granting them legitimacy leads to genocide and war.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad spoke to about two dozen members of the council, including journalists who are members of the group, for an hour and 45 minutes on Wednesday evening. Leaders of many Jewish groups in New York refused to attend, and the council changed the session from a dinner to a more ordinary meeting after some Jewish leaders said they were particularly offended at the thought of dining with Mr. Ahmadinejad.

Mr. Haass has said that the decision to invite Mr. Ahmadinejad was a difficult one, but that he decided that “with so little discourse under way with Iran,” it was important for the Iranian leader to understand how vociferously leaders of the American foreign policy community, of all parties, were responding to his statements.

“Two hours of give and take don’t give him legitimacy,” Mr. Haass said after the meeting. “They reflect the fact that he is president, and our nations have a lot of problems to talk out.”

Among those who were particularly upset at the council’s action was Elie Wiesel, the writer and Holocaust survivor, who said Friday that he had suggested organizing a mass resignation of Jewish leaders who are members of the council. Others would not go along with that approach, he said.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Wiesel said that “civilization means setting limits” and that Mr. Ahmadinejad had stepped beyond all limits with his calls for Israel to be “wiped off the map” and his questioning of whether the Holocaust occurred.

During the meeting with council members, which turned hostile at moments, Mr. Ahmadinejad repeatedly called for “impartial studies” of whether the Holocaust happened; during a news conference on Thursday, he left murky whether his statement about Israel amounted to a threat to destroy the country, or, alternatively, was another way of expressing his oft-repeated statements that the state of Israel never should have been created.

“How can anyone talk to him?” Mr. Wiesel asked, after seeing Mr. Ahmadinejad’s public appearances on television. “I believe he should be declared persona non grata, and Iran expelled from the U.N. while he is president.”

It is very sad that the CNN, UN, American Officials are not educating the
public regarding the profile of Ahmadinejad in past 27 years for crimes against humanity ......
CNN, CFR ... are ignoring what he has done in past and focus to what he says .....,
This is the kind of diversion that Islamic Fascists regime is playing in US media ...
Why are they making outrages comments regarding Israel?
- Due to the fact that they have lost Iranian public support currently less than 5% therefore they are trying to attract the Islamic Fascists from Arab countries
- To create new crisis ..
- To avoid questions regarding Human Rights violations ....
- To create new enemy to change the public attention to real internal problems ....
Why Anderson Cooper from CNN did not ask questions regarding past 27 years Ahmadinejad profile?

cyrus wrote:

Majles PETITION 11: Demanding To Prevent Terrorist Master Mahmood Ahmadinejad From Entering U.S.A. to Attend the UN General Assembly in New York in September

To: Honorable President Of United States George W. Bush, General Secretary of the United Nations Mr. Kofi Anan, U.S. Congress, Senator Brownback, EU Heads of States, Heads of the world’s democratic states, The United Nation Commission for Humman Rights Special Rapporteur, U.S. Secretay of State, the European Parliament, Amnesty International, , Reporters Without Borders , Human Rights Watch, and International Criminal Court (ICC)

WE, the undersigned, as members of the civilized freedom-loving people of the world, call urgently to prevent Terror/ Torture Master Ahmadinejad entering United States:

1- Mahmood Ahmadinejad is not elected president of Iran. Great Majority of Iranian people boycotted sham election and they have not participated in the recent Islamic election.
2- Ahmadinejad stepped on a picture of an American flag on his way to vote. Iranian nation have deep respect for all countries flag specially the American flag which is a cherished national symbol of freedom-loving American people and home of million Iranian-American people. Ahmadinejad is not a representative Iranian Nation.
3- Ahmadinejad plotted many dissident's murder and was directly involved in the 1989 assassination of Iranian exile Kurdish opposition leader Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou and two other Kurdish politicians in Vienna, Austria. A murderer and Terrorist is not a representative of freedom-loving Iranian Nation.
4- According to Ahmadinejad himself, he has executed at least 1000 freedom-loving Iranian people in the prison and he was known as “Tir Khalas Zan”, literally meaning “he who fires coup de grace”. Many female former political prisoners raped by Ahmadinejad. Such a dirty person and virus is not president of Iran.
5- Ahmadinejad is responsible for “Lovers of Martyrdom Garrison” in Iran that would recruit individuals willing to carry out suicide operations against Western targets. Do not allow this Terrorist to put his foot on US soil and enter UN.
6- Ahmadinejad played a central role in the seizure of the United States embassy in Tehran in November 1979 and he was key American hostage-taker for the 444-day.

How can you accept and allow this Brutal Man, Thug, Terror and Torture Master to put his feet on US soil and attend the UN General Assembly in New York?

"Human beings are all members of one body.
They are created from the same essence.
When one member is in pain,
The others cannot rest.
If you do not care about the pain of others,
You do not deserve to be called a human being."
A Quote from Famous Persian Poet Saadi Shirazi
( 13th century Persian poet from Shiraz / Iran )

The Demanding To Prevent Terrorist Master Mahmood Ahmadinejad From Entering U.S.A. to Attend the UN General Assembly in New York in September Petition to Honorable President Of United States George W. Bush, General Secretary of the United Nations Mr. Kofi Anan, U.S. Congress, Senator Brownback, EU Heads of States, Heads of the world’s democratic states, The United Nation Commission for Humman Rights Special Rapporteur, U.S. Secretay of State, the European Parliament, Amnesty International, , Reporters Without Borders , Human Rights Watch, and International Criminal Court (ICC) was created by The National Leadership Assembly for Opposition to IRI and written by Ms. Homa Ehsan (afshins@sosiran.com). This petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice, Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Help form.
_____________________________________________________________

Paris, Jun. 29 – A principal French daily reported that newly-elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in charge of security at the United States embassy in Tehran after he and fellow radical students loyal to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took over the compound by force in November 1979.

Libération wrote that Ahmadinejad was a member of Students Following the Line of the Imam [Khomeini] and a leader of the hostage-takers who held American diplomats and embassy staff for 444 days.

“In 1981 he joined the forces of [Assadollah] Lajevardi, the Revolutionary Prosecutor in Evin Prison who executed hundreds of [political] prisoners every night”, the daily added.

According to Libération, Ahmadinejad subsequently joined the Special Forces branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and later became a commander of the IRGC Qods (Jerusalem) Force and was responsible for the destruction of Iran’s opposition.

Former political prisoners who were in Evin Prison in 1981 have said Ahmadinejad was known to them as “Tir Khalas Zan”, literally meaning “he who fires coup de grace”.

The government-run website Baztab quoted allies of outgoing President Mohammad Khatami as confirming that Ahmadinejad fired coup de grace at prisoners who were executed in Evin Prison in the 1980s.

Iran’s clerical leaders have not shown any reaction so far to the growing controversy over the new president’s past involvement in terrorism and human rights violations.

Ahmadinejad worked for Iran's Eichmann from 1981, How Many Political Prisoners Executed by Terrorist President-Select?

It remains, after 16 years, the most harrowing experience of my life.
There was nothing unusual about that morning of June 26, 1982, as
I left my house at the usual time to go to the Tehran bureau of Agence
France Presse, where I worked. But unknown to me, I was under
surveillance by a special unit of the Revolutionary Guards. Half way
between home and Shohada (Jaleh) square, where the office was,
the Guards crashed their car into my Renault 4, pulled me out and
after beating me almost unconscious, blindfolded me and took me to
the notorious Evin Prison, where my sister, Guiti, had been executed
40 days earlier.
It was my second visit to Evin Prison. The first was in February,
when I was among a team of journalists who were taken on a
“sightseeing tour” of Evin Prison by the prison’s governor, Assadollah
Lajevardi. Despite all the efforts of Lajevardi and his henchmen to
make the prison look like a hotel and the prisoners a bunch of broken
“repentants,” the three French journalists who accompanied me were
not impressed. With their eyes, the prisoners were telling us that
this was all stage-managed for foreign journalists.
“There is something in the eyes of that man that sends shivers
down your spine,” one of the French journalists said of Lajevardi as
Behzad Naziri *
* Mr. Naziri is a member of NCR's Foreign Affairs Committee.
186
The Myth of Moderation
our car left the prison area. “I am not surprised they call him the
‘Butcher’.”
I could not imagine on that cold February day that in barely
four months’ time, I would be back to Evin, this time as a political
prisoner and not a visiting journalist. This time, there were no clean
cells, no smiling wardens, no lavish meals, no inmates strolling on
the lawn with their families. Blindfolded, I was taken straight to
the notorious torture rooms of Evin, where the agonizing cries of
prisoners being whipped, the acrid smell of burnt flesh, the hysterical
shrieking of children seeing their mothers under torture and a
hundred other sensations gave one a surreal sense of entering
another world. There it was that after a few hours, peeping under
the blindfold, I saw “the Butcher” again. This time his real self,
standing atop a woman prisoner, kicking her head and firing
questions at her while his torturers were doing all sorts of things to
her half-dead body...
My memories of Lajevardi in Evin Prison run long and deep, so
you can just imagine how I felt when on Sunday afternoon, August
23, 1998, I heard the news that the “Butcher of Evin” had been killed
in the Grand Bazaar of Tehran by Mojahedin resistance units. The
feeling of joy, relief, revenge, and much more that cannot be put in
words. But I was not alone in this. Millions of Iranians shared that
moment with me.
The news of the death of the most infamous henchman in the
clerical regime - also nicknamed the mullahs’ Eichmann - was greeted
with much joy and relief across the country and in Iranian
communities around the world. For almost two decades Lajevardi
symbolized the most gruesome crimes of the clerical regime against
humanity. He bore direct responsibility for the execution of tens of
thousands of political prisoners, the introduction and systematic use
in Iranian prisons of more than 170 forms of physical and
psychological torture, the systematic rape of women prisoners, even
teenage girls, as a means of shattering prisoners’ morale and
breaking their resistance, and the list goes on.
It was not surprising, therefore, to see all Iranians expressing
outrage and anger when the regime’s president, Mohammad
Khatami, issued a statement only hours after Lajevardi’s death,
heaping praise on the chief executioner and calling for the “swift
187
Who Would Defend Iran's Eichmann?
punishment” of those who killed him.
Until February 1998, Lajevardi was the Head of the State
Prisons Organization. After his resignation, he maintained a
considerable influence in the administration of prisons and torture
centers as one of the closest aides to the supreme leader, Ali
Khamenei, and mullahs’ President Mohammad Khatami. Lajevardi’s
opinion was always sought in any new campaign against the
Mojahedin and other dissidents.
Lajevardi began his political activities in the early 1960s when
he joined the Coalition of Islamic Associations, an extremist
fundamentalist group of Khomeini’s followers. He was arrested in
1969 for his part in the bombing of the Tehran offices of the Israeli
Airlines, El Al.
In the shah’s prison, Mojahedin political prisoners under the
leadership of Mr. Massoud Rajavi, boycotted Lajevardi because of
his extremely fundamentalist and backward views.
With the overthrow of the shah’s regime and the mullahs’ ascent
to power, Khomeini appointed Lajevardi as the Islamic Revolutionary
Prosecutor of Tehran. He was recommended for the job by the leading
figure in the ruling Islamic Republican Party, the then Chief Justice
Mohammad Hossein Beheshti.
Lajevardi was appointed to this senior position without any
academic or practical background in law. After his death, a clerical
official told the state television: “The Imam (Khomeini) appointed
Mr. Lajevardi to this job so that he would uproot and annihilate the
Mojahedin and the counter-revolutionaries in Iran.”
Lajevardi turned the Islamic Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office
into one of the most dreaded apparatus of repression, unleashing a
campaign of ruthless persecution and inquisition against the
opposition, especially the Mojahedin. Even before the government
began its campaign of mass executions in June 1981, Lajevardi led
armed mobs in attacks on Mojahedin offices and centers. Under his
supervision, more than 3,000 Mojahedin activists were jailed and
tortured before June 1981.
But the horror of Lajevardi’s inhuman innovations reached its
zenith after June 1981, when Khomeini’s infamous fatwa against
the Mojahedin effectively became the law. In his decree, Khomeini
had made it a crime punishable by death to be a member or a
188
The Myth of Moderation
supporter of the Mojahedin
These are among the long list of crimes perpetrated by Lajevardi:
1. As the Revolutionary Prosecutor of Tehran and the governor
of Evin prison, and acting on Khomeini’s personal orders, Lajevardi
was directly responsible for the execution of tens of thousands of
political prisoners in the 1980s, mainly from the Mojahedin. On
February 8, 1982, Lajevardi commanded the attack on the
Mojahedin’s central base in Tehran. He appeared on the state
television that evening holding in his arms the infant son of
Resistance Leader Massoud Rajavi and his wife, Ashraf, over the
dead bodies of Ashraf and Moussa Khiabani, Mr. Rajavi’s deputy in
Iran.
2. In prison, Lajevardi raped or executed hundreds of women,
who included teenage girls and elderly mothers.
3. He personally tortured political prisoners and fired coup de
grace at executed prisoners.
4. Lajevardi personally tortured and executed Mrs. Sakineh
Mohammadi Ardehali (Mother Zakeri), 60, Mrs. Akram Islami, 70,
Mrs. Malek-Taj Hakamian, 50, Mrs. Arasteh Qolivand (Mother
Shayesteh), 57, Mrs. Rezvan Rafipour (Mother Rezvan), and Mrs.
Massoumeh Shadmani (Mother Kabiri), Mrs. Massoumeh Azodanlou
(younger sister of Iranian Resistance’s President-elect Maryam
Rajavi), Mrs. Zohreh Tabrizi, Mrs. Qodsi Mohammadi and Mrs.
Shahla Hariri-Motlaq.
5. He was among the main planners of Gohardasht Prison and
expanded solitary cells in order to intensify the torture of political
prisoners and break their resistance.
6. Lajevardi formed criminal gangs and death squads consisting
of Revolutionary Guards and criminal agents in order to assault and
assassinate Mojahedin activists and political prisoners after their
release from jail.
7. He made it a common practice in prisons to torture prisoners
in front of their parents, husbands or wives and children.
8. Lajevardi devised a plan to set up forced labor camps for
political prisoners on a nation-wide scale.
189
Who Would Defend Iran's Eichmann?
Lajevardi in his own words
• Lajevardi’s press conference as Director of State Prisons:
“If we were to conduct medical tests on all prisoners, we would
have to pay the Ministry of Health some 500 billion rials for 468,000
prisoners... To manage this number of inmates, we have converted
all facilities available ranging from libraries, mosques, cultural clubs
etc., into prisons.” 1
* Lajevardi’s address to Evin prisoners in 1981:
“The religious judge has issued a religious verdict ruling that
we should punish you so much so that you would either repent or
die.” 2
* “Until we eliminate the very last one of these (Mojahedin),
there will no compromise in the nature of the Revolutionary
Prosecutors. So long as they still have some energy, we will fight
them and will not rest until we wipe out all of them.” 3
* “There is no need for long trials for those whose crimes are
obvious or those who themselves have confessed that they used
weapons and killed people. Two hours after they are arrested, we
complete the trial, issue and carry out the verdict. We are hopeful to
uproot the (Mojahedin) very soon.” 4
* “There are no political prisoners in Iran. Our only problem
are the common criminals.” 5
* “The corrupt grouplets must be eliminated. Since they are
fighting the Islamic Republic, according to a religious decree,
everyone belonging to them must be executed because they wage
war on God. No member of the Mojahedin must feel safe in this
country. They must always be fearful and on the run...” 6
Worldwide notoriety
Over the past two decades, hundreds of reports and articles have
appeared in the international press on Lajevardi’s central role in
190
The Myth of Moderation
the clerical regime’s crimes against humanity. The Washington Post’s
article, titled “Iranian Prison Horror,”7 was typical among them:
The malevolent face of Assadollah Lajevardi, the new directorgeneral
of Iran’s prisons, says it all about human rights in Iran.
They don’t exist.
President Hashemi Rafsanjani has appointed this man, whose
reputation as the top torturer of Tehran is uncontested. Lajevardi
should have been tried or at least banished for his bloody excesses
during the reign of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Instead, he is overseeing
all prisons in Iran, proving that Khomeini’s death and Rafsanjani’s
ascension to power changed nothing...
Lajevardi is widely known in Iran as the ‘Butcher of Evin’- a
nickname earned when he presided over Iran’s most notorious prison,
Evin, in the foothills outside Tehran. It is one of 70 prisons in and
around Tehran alone and one of 600 throughout Iran.
A former lingerie peddler, Lajevardi took the Evin assignment
like a rattlesnake takes the exposed flesh. He packed 60 prisoners
to a cell at Evin, executed thousands and tortured thousands more
in ways that normal people could not conceive.
He and other officials, including a member of the Iranian
parliament, raped female prisoners, including virgins whom
Khomeini wanted sullied before they were sent to the next life.
The innovation that earned Lajevardi the “butcher” nickname
was his practice of draining the blood of Iranians on death row. The
blood was used as plasma for Iranian soldiers fighting the long war
with Iraq. Lajevardi was careful to leave his victims just enough
blood so they were conscious when they went before the firing squad...
“Butcher of Evin” killed in attack
CNN, Aug. 23: In Iran two gunmen killed Iran’s former general
prosecutor in Tehran’s grand bazaar. The Baghdad-based Iranian
opposition, the Mojahedin Khalq, claimed responsibility for the
Sunday killing of Assadollah Lajevardi, known to his enemies as the
butcher of Evin.
Lajevardi was the one-time head of the notorious Evin prison in
northern Tehran and was blamed for ordering the death of tens of
thousands of political prisoners ten years ago in the summer of 1988.
191
Who Would Defend Iran's Eichmann?
“Butcher of Evin” shot dead in Tehran
Tehran, Aug. 23 (AFP) - Assadollah Lajevardi, Iran’s former
prison chief known as “The Butcher,” was shot dead here Sunday in
an attack claimed by the country’s leading armed opposition group.
For his repressive methods, he was dubbed as “the Butcher of
Tehran”.
After the Islamists came to power, he served a stint as prosecutor
general, a position which he used to wage a repressive and bloody
campaign against “counter-revolutionaries.”
Later he was put in charge of Evin prison, where he was accused
of overseeing widespread acts of torture and other human rights
violations in the 1980s, when the regime waged a merciless campaign
against opposition groups.
Lajevardi was promoted in 1989 to the post of director of the
country’s prison system.

Richard N. Haass Is Wrong For The Following Reasons:
1- Ignored the facts that Ahmadinejad is Islamic Fascist and there is no
comparison between Castro and Ahmadinejad as
Terror and Torture Master
2- In past 27 years state Dept. under the direction of people like Richard N. Haass has not helped the Iranian opposition...
3- Mahmood Ahmadinejad is not elected president of Iran. Great Majority of Iranian people boycotted sham election and they have not participated in the recent Islamic election.
4- Ahmadinejad stepped on a picture of an American flag on his way to vote. Iranian nation have deep respect for all countries flag specially the American flag which is a cherished national symbol of freedom-loving American people and home of million Iranian-American people. Ahmadinejad is not a representative Iranian Nation.
5- Ahmadinejad plotted many dissident's murder and was directly involved in the 1989 assassination of Iranian exile Kurdish opposition leader Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou and two other Kurdish politicians in Vienna, Austria. A murderer and Terrorist is not a representative of freedom-loving Iranian Nation.
6- According to Ahmadinejad himself, he has executed at least 1000 freedom-loving Iranian people in the prison and he was known as “Tir Khalas Zan”, literally meaning “he who fires coup de grace”. Many female former political prisoners raped by Ahmadinejad. Such a dirty person and virus is not president of Iran.
7- Ahmadinejad is responsible for “Lovers of Martyrdom Garrison” in Iran that would recruit individuals willing to carry out suicide operations against Western targets. Do not allow this Terrorist to put his foot on US soil and enter UN.
7- Ahmadinejad played a central role in the seizure of the United States embassy in Tehran in November 1979 and he was key American hostage-taker for the 444-day.

How can you accept and allow this Brutal Man, Thug, Terror and Torture Master to put his feet on US soil and attend the UN General Assembly in New York and invited to CFR?

Council on Foreign Relations chief explains why his organization hosted a discussion with Iran's president.

The Council on Foreign Relations has hosted literally tens of thousands of meetings in its 85-year history, but few have generated as much interest or controversy as the session held Wednesday night in New York with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Critics said the meeting was immoral because it bestowed a degree of legitimacy on a man who does not deserve any, given his refusal to accept the reality of the Holocaust and his rejection of Israel. Others predicted that any time spent with Ahmadinejad would be a waste; that the statements of those there would have no effect on him and that we would learn nothing in return.

Nevertheless, we decided to go ahead with the meeting. This reflects the mission and nonpartisan tradition of the council. Exchange does not constitute endorsement. We have a long history of meeting with controversial leaders, including Fidel Castro, with whom many of our more than 4,000 members — and many Americans — disagree.

The reason is simple: Face-to-face meetings are often valuable. In my experience as a government official, I learned that leaders too often become isolated. Meeting with them ensures that they and those around them get to hear what you have to say, unfiltered. Equally important, meeting with someone provides you with a better understanding of their substance and style. Rarely do you leave an encounter exactly as you came in.

I believe the decision to host the meeting this week was justified by what, in fact, happened. For nearly two hours, about two dozen members of the council challenged Ahmadinejad on his denial of the Holocaust, his refusal to recognize Israel, human rights abuses inside Iran, Iran's nuclear ambitions and its activities in Iraq.

Ahmadinejad, for his part, gave as good as he got, challenging Americans on everything from our own nuclear program to U.S. policy in Iraq to American democracy.

Did we learn anything? I heard three things of considerable interest. Ahmadinejad said that Iran was open to cooperating to stabilize Iraq; that Iran believed it had a right to enrich uranium but that, for religious reasons, it was prohibited from having nuclear weapons; and that Iran is open to relations with the United States if Washington is prepared to take the initiative.

The last statement in particular is worth considering. It is one thing for a private, independent group of individuals not associated with the U.S. government to meet with Iran's president; it is something else for U.S. officials to meet with various representatives of Iran's government.

In my view, they should. There is little evidence that the alternative policies have worked or show any promise of working. The Iranian regime is entrenched despite years of American hopes for change. Using military force might not succeed in destroying Iran's nuclear installations, but it would lead Iran to reconstruct them in a more difficult-to-attack fashion, trigger terrorism and likely lead to far higher prices for oil and a global economic crisis.

Direct dialogue is also worth exploring because of Ahmadinejad himself. Effective leaders have both the will and the ability to make deals. Ahmadinejad, more than any of his predecessors, has the ability. The question here is one of political desire. The best way to gauge this is through dialogue.

For one thing, it may work. The two countries may be able to agree on a formula that places a mutually acceptable ceiling on Iran's nuclear activities and on ways to stabilize both Afghanistan and Iraq.

But dialogue also makes sense even if it fails. It is important to be able to demonstrate to American citizens and the world alike that the United States made a good-faith effort to resolve differences diplomatically before turning to sanctions or other policies.

It is time to see dialogue and diplomacy as what they are: not as a favor to bestow but as a favor to ourselves. Diplomacy is not a moral judgment but a tool with the potential to advance U.S. interests. We should have the confidence to employ it; if we do, we are more likely to isolate others than ourselves, which too often is now the case.

---------------------

RICHARD N. HAASS, former State Department director of policy planning, is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of "The Opportunity: America's Moment to Alter History's Course."

Rejecting CFR President For "Speaking With the Enemy" As Very Bad Decision, Judgement and Also
Rejecting All EU Appeasers For Détente with
The Islamic Fascists Occupiers Of Iran

Détente with Islamic Fascists is betraying the cause of liberty and
appeasing tyranny.

1- Ahmadinejad is not elected president of
Iran. Great Majority of Iranian people
boycotted sham election and they have not
participated in the Islamic Fascist election.

2- Ahmadinejad plotted many dissident's
murder and was directly involved in the
1989 assassination of Iranian exile Kurdish
opposition leader Ghassemlou and two
other Kurdish politicians in Vienna, Austria.
A murderer and Terrorist is not a
representative of freedom-loving Iranian
Nation.
3- According to Ahmadinejad himself, he has
executed at least 1000 freedom-loving
Iranian people in the prison and he was
known as “Tir Khalas Zan”, literally meaning
“he who fires coup de grace”. Many female
former political prisoners raped by
Ahmadinejad. Such a dirty person and virus
is not president of Iran.
4- Ahmadinejad is responsible for “Lovers of
Martyrdom Garrison” in Iran that would
recruit individuals willing to carry out
suicide operations against Western targets.
5- Ahmadinejad played a central role in the
seizure of the United States embassy in
Tehran in November 1979 and he was key
American hostage-taker for the 444-day.
6- Ahmadinejad stepped on a picture of an
American flag on his way to vote. Iranian
nation have deep respect for all countries
flag specially the American flag which is a
cherished national symbol of freedom-loving
American people and home of million Iranian
-American people. He is not a representative
Iranian Nation.
7- He wants to wipe Israel off the map and
destroy America.

This Islamic Fascist should not have been
allowed to put his foot on US soil and
enter UN or he should have been arrested.
Shame on CNN ... for not exposing this
man profile and facts for public... rejecting
any talk at any level with .......
TRUE SECURITY BEGINS WITH REGIME
CHANGE IN IRAN, FREE Society, Secular
Democracy and FREE Iran. USA Should
use all resources for Regime Change by
Any Means ASAP.
7006 ActivistChat

Council on Foreign Relations chief explains why his organization hosted a discussion with Iran's president.

The Council on Foreign Relations has hosted literally tens of thousands of meetings in its 85-year history, but few have generated as much interest or controversy as the session held Wednesday night in New York with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Critics said the meeting was immoral because it bestowed a degree of legitimacy on a man who does not deserve any, given his refusal to accept the reality of the Holocaust and his rejection of Israel. Others predicted that any time spent with Ahmadinejad would be a waste; that the statements of those there would have no effect on him and that we would learn nothing in return.

Nevertheless, we decided to go ahead with the meeting. This reflects the mission and nonpartisan tradition of the council. Exchange does not constitute endorsement. We have a long history of meeting with controversial leaders, including Fidel Castro, with whom many of our more than 4,000 members — and many Americans — disagree.

The reason is simple: Face-to-face meetings are often valuable. In my experience as a government official, I learned that leaders too often become isolated. Meeting with them ensures that they and those around them get to hear what you have to say, unfiltered. Equally important, meeting with someone provides you with a better understanding of their substance and style. Rarely do you leave an encounter exactly as you came in.

I believe the decision to host the meeting this week was justified by what, in fact, happened. For nearly two hours, about two dozen members of the council challenged Ahmadinejad on his denial of the Holocaust, his refusal to recognize Israel, human rights abuses inside Iran, Iran's nuclear ambitions and its activities in Iraq.

Ahmadinejad, for his part, gave as good as he got, challenging Americans on everything from our own nuclear program to U.S. policy in Iraq to American democracy.

Did we learn anything? I heard three things of considerable interest. Ahmadinejad said that Iran was open to cooperating to stabilize Iraq; that Iran believed it had a right to enrich uranium but that, for religious reasons, it was prohibited from having nuclear weapons; and that Iran is open to relations with the United States if Washington is prepared to take the initiative.

The last statement in particular is worth considering. It is one thing for a private, independent group of individuals not associated with the U.S. government to meet with Iran's president; it is something else for U.S. officials to meet with various representatives of Iran's government.

In my view, they should. There is little evidence that the alternative policies have worked or show any promise of working. The Iranian regime is entrenched despite years of American hopes for change. Using military force might not succeed in destroying Iran's nuclear installations, but it would lead Iran to reconstruct them in a more difficult-to-attack fashion, trigger terrorism and likely lead to far higher prices for oil and a global economic crisis.

Direct dialogue is also worth exploring because of Ahmadinejad himself. Effective leaders have both the will and the ability to make deals. Ahmadinejad, more than any of his predecessors, has the ability. The question here is one of political desire. The best way to gauge this is through dialogue.

For one thing, it may work. The two countries may be able to agree on a formula that places a mutually acceptable ceiling on Iran's nuclear activities and on ways to stabilize both Afghanistan and Iraq.

But dialogue also makes sense even if it fails. It is important to be able to demonstrate to American citizens and the world alike that the United States made a good-faith effort to resolve differences diplomatically before turning to sanctions or other policies.

It is time to see dialogue and diplomacy as what they are: not as a favor to bestow but as a favor to ourselves. Diplomacy is not a moral judgment but a tool with the potential to advance U.S. interests. We should have the confidence to employ it; if we do, we are more likely to isolate others than ourselves, which too often is now the case.

---------------------

RICHARD N. HAASS, former State Department director of policy planning, is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of "The Opportunity: America's Moment to Alter History's Course."

Last edited by cyrus on Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:33 am; edited 4 times in total

for the information of G2K members, here is the account of AJ's strange
meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations that was posted on the
Council's daily newsletter. It was written by Bernard Gwertzman, the
longtime diplomatic correspondent of the New York Times, now retired from
the newspaper and working at the Council.

Tom Lippman, Washington

----------------

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sparred with a high-levelgroup
from the Council on Foreign Relations for ni nety minutes Wednesday on
virtually every contentious issue between the United States and Iran.

There were no obvious changes in the responses given by Ahmadinejad, who
has been granting interviews to major news organizations over the past
week ahead of his trip to the opening session of the UN General Assembly.
But the Iranian leader (!!!!!- H.H.) engaged in a protracted punch and counterpunch with
the panel.

“I’m not sure we learned anything new,” said Richard N. Haass, the CFR
president, in comments afterwards. But he said it was possible the Iranian
president might have learned something of American attitudes from the
session. The meeting, which sparked controversy among members of the
Council and some Jewish groups, featured more than two dozen Council
members and some ten Iranian officials under tight security at the
Intercontinental Hotel on East Forty-eighth Street in New York .

Differing views were apparent from the firs t question of the evening, when
Peter G. Peterson, CFR's chairman, questioned Ahmadinejad’s frequent
assertion that the Holocaust was a “myth” and that more research had to be
done to ascertain the truth on whether the six million Jews who perished
in World War II were victims of Nazi genocide. Peterson noted that he and
David Rockefeller, who was also a participant in the meeting, had visited
Auschwitz , the Nazi death camp in Poland , and he said that the majority of
American Jews and non-Jews alike were “horrified” by Ahmadinejad's
assertion that the Holocaust was a “myth.” The Iranian said he doubted
Americans all held such a view.

He repeated what he has said in previous interviews—namely that some sixty
million people died in World War II, and so why the special attention paid
to the question of Jews? He said the question deserved more study. He then
went on to say the real question is why the Palestinians had to “pay for
that” by being forced to give up their lands, and go into exile. He
likened the Palestinians who have been killed to “genocide.”

Martin S. Indyk, who has served twice as the U.S. Ambassador to Israel,
and a tour as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, noted
he had endeavored during the Clinton administration to work out a lasting
peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but that Iranian-supported
terrorists “did everything possible” to prevent it. The Iranian president
again repeated what he has said before, namely that all Palestinians
should “decide” their future.

On the question of Iran ’s nuclear program, the Iranian president broke no
new ground. He was questioned by Brent Scowcroft, a former national
security adviser, as to why Iran insisted on going ahead with its uranium
enrichment program. Others asked why Iran did not accept the offer made by
President Bush for Iran to have peaceful uses of nuclear energy so long as
it stopped the enrichment program.

Ahmadinejad repeated that Iran had the right to develop a peaceful nuclear
program, and that it had no intention of building nuclear weapons. He
noted that only the United States and “a few” European countries felt
differently. He said he had just come from the nonaligned nations
conference in Havana where Iran got complete support for its nuclear
program. (As if they are some body & they matter in real world politics!!!?? - H.H.)

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said "Iranian
journalists are imprisoned and newspapers are closed” and that "elections
are not free." He added: “You speak of the rights of Palestinians but Iran
provided rockets to Hezbollah that killed Palestinians in Israel . Would
you be willing to change your policies at home?” This led Ahmadinejad to
claim that his country was freer than the United States .

(What baloney! -H.H.)

“Please don’t allow yourself to be involved in the domestic politics of
other countries or there is much more we can all say. If you think you can
affect our people with your statements you are wrong. We had free
elections—I spoke with people and they chose me. This is a unique, pure
democracy, which is impossible in your country. Which country is freer and
more democratic? I am ready for an independent discussion on this. Let
people decide for themselves. By creating a wind now you are creating a
bigger storm,” Ahmadinejad said.

When asked by Fareed Zakaria, a columnist and editor for Newsweek, whether
there was a way to restoring the good relations that once existed between
the two countries, the Iranian president blamed the United States for the
break in relations following the Iranian revolution in 1979. He did not
mention the seizure of American embassy hostages for 444 days. “Those who
cut off relations and destroyed them have to fix it,” he said.

As the meeting drew to a close, the Iranian leader observed, “In the
beginning of the session you said you are independent, and I accepted
that. But everything you said seems to come from the government
perspective.” Haass responded that there had been no advance coordination
among the Council participants and that “the aim was to expose you to
views of a broad range of Americans. It would be wrong for you to leave
this meeting thinking that you heard unrepresentative views.”

===========================

Only Aakhonds can be so damn bare faced.
One wonders, if HE is mad, brain washed, communist, or simply an idiot?
But then the Yanks got what they deserved. Who asked them to invite the fellow in the first place & give him a podium?!

The BBC radio 4 in Britain has started a campaign of misinformation on Iran. It is called ‘Uncovering Iran’. What is the BBC’s agenda, I wonder? On tonight’s edition broadcast at 8 pm what I heard was akin to what you would here on the regime’s state run media channels inside Iran every hour of every day! This set of misinformation is a kind of propaganda that the regime itself could not have devised any better to illustrate to the British public an image of a good regime that respects human rights, democratic principles and values on the one hand and on the other a regime which has been subjected to the unreasonable aggression of the Bush administration. I am speechless! On tonight’s edition the BBC gave the impression that the US has betrayed the international community by calling the Islamic regime an axis of evil when it had been cooperating with the Americans in fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. The BBC interviewed a bunch of naive leftist Americans who believe America should not have any preconditions such as the regime’s halting their nuclear activities before they would engage in any direct talks. The BBC tonight very clearly painted a picture that the West has lost a golden opportunity, by America’s default, to engage with the then reformist government headed by Khatami. Had they engaged in direct talks with the regime then, who knows, may be some good would have come out of it! The BBC clearly stated that Ahmadinejad and the fundamentalists in Iran won the last election because the Americans rejected the reformist government. I am flabbergasted! This is all coming from the BBC Radio 4, the intelligent Radio!

In the earlier editions and so far the BBC has painted the Islamic Republic a nice place to live in. No mention of the regime’s atrocities against the Iranians; no mention of the living conditions of millions of Iranians; no mention of the high number of drug addicts; no mention of the Iranian girls being sold as sex slaves to the neighbouring Arab countries; no mention of the Islamic regime being the second biggest executioner in the world after China; no mention of the hangings of children; no mention of the high level of corruption; no mention of the closure of newspapers and magazines for the slightest criticism of the regime; no mention of the thousands of prisoners of conscience; no mention of countless other breaches of basic human rights; no mention of the regime’s intentions to export their revolution to the third world Muslim countries; no mention of the regime’s military and financial support of the terrorist organisations; no mention of the…

It seems that the BBC either has not got a clue or they just love the Mullahs in Iran for some reason or another. They somehow still believe in the well-exposed and burnt reformist movement.

Well, this bit is for the BBC:

It is a tragic mistake to believe that there are some elements within the regime, who would help to soften things up for the West! It is a tragic mistake to open different accounts for different factions of the Islamic Republic regime. In essence, there are no different factions within the Islamic regime. It is foolish to believe there is! There are no differences, at least as far as the rest of the world should be concerned, between Khamenei, Rafsanjani, Mesbah-Yzdi, Ahmadinejad and any other Mullah for that matter, whether reformist or fundamentalist. Tens of Iranian dissidents were assassinated abroad during the governments of both Rafsanjani and Khatami; hundreds of newspaper and publishers were closed down during their time; countless executions took place during their terms; and many more atrocities against the Iranian people took place during their time. In fact as far as the Iranians are concerned nothing has significantly changed in the last 27 years of the Islamic republic’s tyrannical rule, regardless of which faction has been in charge. The Islamic regime is a monster with several heads: nice head, innocent head, modern head, ugly head, aggressive head, medieval head and lying head. The struggle between these Mullahs at home is only for the rein of power and all the bounties that come with it. It is all a matter of personal friendship and close associations between them: it is a mafia style system where favours must be returned. However, as far as the rest of the world should be concerned, they are all united in their main strategy, which is to establish and maintain the rule of Islam, export their Islamic revolution, and prepare and wage the Jihad on the rest of the infidel world. Therefore, whether it is the fundamentalist or the reformists in charge of the Islamic regime it should be irrelevant to the West and the rest of the world for that matter. Engage in direct talks and negotiations with these people in their own terms at your own peril!

If the International Community were united in dealing with the Mullahs, there would be little or no problem of defeating the Islamic fascism and perhaps produce a half opportunity for the repressed Iranians to get rid of this despotic regime and establish democracy in Iran. The problem seems to be that most of the 5+1 members do not seem to fully comprehend the gravity of the situation with regards to the Islamic regime and their Islamofascist terrorists’ threats to the world. What are the EU members playing at? What are the Chinese and Russians playing at? Why are the Venezuelans and Cubans and other non-Muslim countries siding with the Islamic regime against the West? In the case of the later, it always amazes me how rhetorical these leftist governments/countries are. So long as it is fighting America, that’ll do! The Islamic regime is a sworn enemy of communism. When it came to power in 1979, it executed thousands of Iranian communist supporters and activists. However, what those confused apologists must ask themselves are these questions, before taking the ridiculous decision to side with the Islamic regime: aren’t we infidels in the eyes of the Islamic regime? Don’t we all culturally engage in the same rituals and vices that are forbidden by the Islam? In a private meeting with the families of the staff of the office for the protection of Islamic regime’s interests in Washington, Ahmadinejad said this to his guests: “These people (the Americans) here are all dazed and muddled. Bring them on to the Islamic Republic’s ways. The foreign diplomats here want to make you as their models. Give them that opportunity. In this place 999 cars out of 1000 end up at the bottom of the cliff. Don’t follow them. Here is the last stop for the material world and the last stop for the pleasure and lust seeking hedonistic people.”

Strategically, the Islamic regime and its terrorists need the support of anyone they can get whether infidel or not in their fight against the strong America. These countries and apologists must be reminded that whilst they are bedfellows of the regime at the moment, at some stage in the future, themselves will all be the targets of the regime’s sponsored terrorists as the holy war is to establish the rule of Islam in the whole of the world. The regime is hard at work to develop new home made military equipments from long range missiles, fighter bombers to unmanned aircrafts/drones and announcing their successes almost on a daily basis.

It is a crucial time of our history now. The whole world must unite against the islamofascist phenomenon. It is crucial that the 5+1 explores all the avenues to reach a consensus in dealing decisively with the regime’s nuclear activities. I would even argue that since democracy and freedom has a far better prospect of being achieved in Russia and China than in Iran under the rule of the Mullahs, if any concessions are to be made by the West, these should be made to the Russians and the Chinese, not the Islamic regime – the Islamic regime after all and in essence is and should be seen as the common cultural and ideological enemy. The Russians and Chinese should be further reminded that the short-term economic gains by siding with the Islamic regime would inevitably have far greater tragic consequences not only for themselves but also for the world as a whole. As, if and when the regime obtains the capability to produce nuclear bombs, and passes them on to a few other Muslim countries as they have made it clear time and again that they would, it would be very difficult to ascertain the source of the nuclear suicide bombings that might hit the capitals of the infidel world, be it, in Europe, America or Asia. You may think it would be impossible to go through the securities with a tennis ball sized highly enriched uranium device, capable of killing ten times more people than the 9/11 atrocity and possibly crippling even more. But remember, where there is a will there is a way.

September 25, 2006 -- HAVING failed to stop war in Iraq, French President Jacques Chirac is determined to prevent a similar fate befalling Iran.
"There will be no war against Iran," Chirac is reported to have told a special emissary of the Islamic Republic who visited him in Paris last week. "Anything other than negotiations would be resolutely opposed by France." History may not be repeating itself, but it is hard not to remember similar pledges Chirac gave to Saddam Hussein up to March 2003, just weeks before the U.S.-led Coalition invaded Iraq.

It is now clear that Chirac's assurances played a crucial role in persuading Saddam not to offer the concessions that might have prevented war and regime change. From his prison cell, former Iraqi Vice President Tariq Aziz told U.S. and Iraqi interrogators that Saddam was convinced that the French and, to a lesser extent, the Russians would save his regime at the last minute.

Just hours before he flew to New York to attend the U.N. General Assembly, Chirac dropped the only condition that the "Five Plus One" groups (the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany) had demanded of Teheran as a prelude to negotiations.

"Iran should not be asked to stop uranium enrichment as a precondition," Chirac said. "And there is no sense to refer the Islamic Republic back to the Security Council."

The Bush administration thus lost the only concession it received from its European allies as an inducement to join talks with Iran. Thanks to Chirac, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appears to have scored a major diplomatic victory over President Bush.

Nevertheless, the Islamic Republic continues to implement a strategy designed to counter any sanctions that might eventually be imposed.

One facet of this strategy is relocating Iranian assets in places where they cannot be seized or frozen. Recent months have seen billions of dollars in Iranian assets transferred from Western banks to financial institutions less likely to heed any advice from Washington.

Another is stockpiling dual-use products likely to be denied to Iranian importers when, and if, sanctions are imposed. Over the past few months Teheran has contacted scores of Iranian businessmen in Europe and America to give a helping hand, and make a quick buck, in speeding up the flow of sanction-busting goods.

The massive increase in imports has led to a doubling of waiting time for ships to unload at Iran's principal ports, including Bandar Abbas, while a stream of trucks continues non-stop from Turkey. In most cases, the imports operation is handled by the commercial wing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard in the manner of a military operation.

Finally, Iran's sanctions-busting plan includes a strong diplomatic element. The Islamic Republic has already won the express support of no fewer than 116 of the 192 U.N. members for its position regarding the nuclear issue. So, if the Security Council ends up imposing some sanctions on Teheran, it is not at all certain that its decisions would be respected by a majority of U.N. members.

Paradoxically, Teheran's success in countering sanctions in advance may hasten their imposition by the Security Council - for Iran's friends on the council, especially Russia and China, might decide that it isn't worth picking a quarrel with Washington to stop sanctions that won't hurt the Islamic Republic in any case.

The law of unintended consequences may operate in yet another way: if sanctions prove useless from the start, the United States and its closest allies might decide that the only effective move against Iran is military action.

In other words, Teheran's success in countering possible sanctions may render a military clash inevitable.

According to Teheran sources, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has "factored in" such a possibility. "A limited military clash would suit Ahmadinejad fine," says a former Cabinet minister. "The Americans would appear, fire a few missiles, bomb a few sites and go away. Ahmadinejad would show on TV some old ladies and babies killed by the Americans, declare victory and pursue his grand plans with renewed vigor."

The self-confident mood advertised by Ahmadinejad in his star appearance at the non-aligned summit in Havana and his fiery speech at the U.N. General Assembly indicate a firm belief that he has won his first battle against the American "Great Satan."

Portraying his predecessors as weak men who gave in to U.S. pressure, Ahmadinejad is counting on his macho image to help his faction win crucial elections this fall for local government councils and the Assembly of Experts (which chooses the "Supreme Guide").

France's sudden change of position, though expected, has left in tatters the alliance that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice once boasted about.

Having failed to develop an Iran policy for almost five years, the Bush administration was glad to hide that lacuna by talking up the European option. Chirac's decision to remove that fig leaf is bound to renew the debate in Washington about what to do with a messianic regime determined to reshape the Middle East after its own fashion and in defiance of the Bush Doctrine.

Ahmadinejad's success in warding off external pressures and projecting an image of invincibility abroad would enhance his position at home. And there, we may see yet another illustration of how the law of unintended consequences works: The United States sets out to cut Ahmadinejad down to size by focusing on the nuclear issue, and ends up helping the ultra-radical president strengthen his position at home.

And, that, in turn, would make it harder for him or any other Iranian leader to accept the compromises needed to avoid a collision course.